Guardians approve lake drawdown changes
Fears have been raised that using too much water when lake levels are low could cause permanent damage to the lake's shoreline.
However, Guardians chairman Darryl Sycamore said the approved changes to the "drawdown rate" only applied to the upper range of low lake levels.
Critically, the changes the Guardians had approved mimicked drops in lake levels previously observed in the natural record.
"The Guardians have considered a range of proposals from Meridian Energy and have agreed to some amendments which mimic variations in the natural record of lake level prior to the establishment of the Manapouri hydro-scheme," Mr Sycamore said.
"These amendments will enable additional energy generation and provide resilience of our electricity network."
The Guardians were mandated in the Conservation Act to have particular regard to the effects of the operation of the hydro scheme on social, conservation, recreation and tourism values, he said.
"We have carefully considered the proposed amendments on the values prescribed in the Act and have only provided our support to those which will likely result in less than minor effects," he said.
If further changes were sought, unless Meridian could provide robust scientific reasoning to adopt the changes, they would not have the Guardians' support.
Lake Manapōuri and Lake Te Anau had "given enough to NZ Inc" and any additional energy would have to be produced elsewhere, he said.
Energy Minister Simon Watts heralded the changes as a "boost" to New Zealand's hydro generation and energy security.
They would allow an extra 45GWh of energy to be produced by the Manapōuri Power Scheme each year — enough energy to power about 6000 homes, Mr Watts said.
"Last winter, New Zealand faced an energy shortage that led to significant price increases for consumers, in part due to low hydro lake levels," he said.
"This government will not accept a repeat of last winter and is working at pace to ensure we have a reliable and affordable energy supply.
"Lake Manapōuri and Lake Te Anau are not only environmentally and culturally significant, but they are also essential to New Zealand's energy system."
The changes balanced the needs of New Zealand's electricity system with the environmental impact on the lakes and their surrounding areas, he said.
Emeritus Professor Sir Alan Mark, of Dunedin, the first chairman of the Guardians, said changes to the low operating range risked damage to shorelines, or the loss of beaches that had taken "eons" to develop.
"They're not going to be replaced if they're lost," Sir Alan said.
When lake levels were lowered to unnatural levels in 1972 — the year before the Guardians were established — several beaches were lost forever, Sir Alan said.
Decades of daily lake level data was used to establish the guidelines more than 50 years ago and they had since "proved to be extremely successful" in retaining the lakes' beaches in their natural state, he said.
Meridian manages about half of New Zealand's total hydro storage and uses Lakes Pūkaki, Ōhau, Aviemore, Waitaki, Benmore, Manapōuri and Te Anau to generate energy.
Previously, a Meridian spokesman said the government "has been very clear in its desire to ensure there's enough electricity for all New Zealand homes and businesses this winter, and Manapōuri Power Station has an important role to play in that".
Changes to the operating guidelines include changing the drawdown rates, reducing duration requirements on how long the lakes can stay within the first band of low operating ranges, and removing equinoctial requirements, which set additional limits on how hydro generation could affect the lakes twice a year during windier periods.
hamish.maclean@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Lead-soil rule review idea nixed
An independent review of Dunedin's contentious rules for lead-soil testing requirements is the only "credible" way forward, a critic says. However, the Dunedin City Council yesterday rejected his idea. Terramark resource management planner Darryl Sycamore used yesterday's public forum to call on the council to end its "overly conservative" approach towards potential lead contamination in soil surrounding the city's older housing stock. To redevelop older properties where lead paint has possibly been used, a new soil-testing process is required, and properties can be permanently added to the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (Hail) register. Developers have railed against the requirement, saying the council's "misinterpretation" of national standards and its resulting policy was adding $15,000 to $30,000 to the cost of every new home in Dunedin that required resource consent. Speaking on behalf of Terramark, engineering, surveying and planning firm Patersons Dunedin, TL Survey Services, and the Otago Property Investors Association, Mr Sycamore told councillors he had approached 50 councils and heard from 36 — and the Dunedin City Council was an outlier in this case. "There is no doubt the DCC is applying the NESCS [National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health] in a different way to other councils. "The implications of a residential property being identified as contaminated land cannot be overstated. "The approach of council is contrary to the advice of [Ministry for the Environment] who wrote the NESCS, and inconsistent with Health NZ guidance. "We respectfully ask that councillors direct city planning to cease this overly conservative approach and follow the approach of other councils throughout the country. "We also request that city planning commission an independent report on the issue, using a party agreed to by both parties." The council was often told the cost to build was too high in Dunedin, "and that the council is perceived as anti-development". Its rules in this instance was evidence of that. An independent review was required to determine if Dunedin developers and home buyers were indeed "at a disadvantage compared to every other district", Mr Sycamore said. "I think that's the only credible way through." A council spokesman yesterday said the council disagreed with Mr Sycamore's assessments. "We have already sought independent professional advice and are not planning to change our approach or commission a further independent review," the spokesman said. Only a small number of properties which had pre-1945 painted wooden or roughcast houses were covered by the new requirements and the council said the impact of its interpretation of the national standards was "minor". "We also reject any suggestion the DCC is anti-development." He said the council's approach "responds to the regulations and the findings of an independent review by Stantec". The spokesman noted the Otago Daily Times last year reported Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora Southern medical officer of health Dr John Eastwood applauded the council's approach to the issue.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Dunne's Weekly: Oppositions Seldom Win, But Governments Often Lose
That Oppositions do not win elections, but governments lose them is a well-established political maxim. Elections are essentially a judgement on the performance of the government of the day. Seldom does the capability of the Opposition to govern come into the calculation, if the government has lost public favour. Elections are therefore more about getting rid of an unpopular government than the risk of installing an often-unprepared Opposition in power. Moreover, voters often have short memories. A recent poll showed many people believe it is time for another group of parties to govern in New Zealand, despite it being less than two years since that same group was unceremoniously turfed out of office and does not yet seem to fully appreciate the reasons why. Indeed, although the Opposition has not yet released any specific policy, its general attitude seems to be that it will just pick up where it left off last time and resume the same sort of policy approach and style of government voters rejected so clearly at the last election. That is why Labour was able to get away last week with criticising the government's handling of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis without offering any alternative of its own, because, frankly, as the Opposition, its views do not matter. Next year's election will be more a referendum on the government's performance than a critique of the Opposition's alternative. This is not unique to New Zealand. Last year's Labour landslide victory in the British general election was more a repudiation of fourteen years of Conservative rule, than an endorsement of Labour. Now, having rejected the Conservatives so overwhelmingly, and to date being less than impressed with Labour's offering, it is hardly surprising that British voters are flocking in droves to the untried Reform Party. The New Zealand equivalent of that phenomenon has been the increase in support for minor parties, New Zealand First and the Greens in particular. So much so that the next election, and which parties form the next government, could come down to how well the minor parties perform, rather than the major parties they could be expected to align with in government. Given that context, it is not altogether surprising that there is mounting speculation the current government could be the country's first one-term government in 50 years. But, so far, the evidence for that happening is not strong. The National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc has led in most opinion polls since the end of 2021. Today, the latest rolling average of polls shows the coalition government ahead of its rivals by just under 4%, and still able to form a majority government. At the same point in the electoral cycle three years ago, the then Labour Government was trailing the then-Opposition National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc by just under 5%. Nevertheless, National's position is precarious. Its vulnerability, which this column has highlighted many times previously, is its increasing dependence on its coalition partners to get across the electoral line. Until recently, the Prime Minister has shrugged this point aside, saying it is just one of the realities of MMP. However, in recent weeks there has been a perceptible change in the government's tempo, with a slew of major policy announcements from National in a variety of areas, from a new infrastructure plan, a new funding model for general practices, an end to building open-plan classrooms, and even the controversial changes to electoral enrolment provisions, National has shown a new determination in seeking to dominate the political agenda on its terms. No longer does it seem happy to let its coalition partners control the policy agenda as they appear to have done throughout the government's term. With the election just over a year away National looks to have moved centre-stage in terms of the government's performance. It knows that to win the next election the coalition government needs to first lock-in the support of those who voted for it last time, before trying to drag in additional other voters from across the political divide. So, National's current moves are a deliberate attempt to claw back supporters who may have deserted it for ACT or New Zealand First, because they have seen them as more boldly defined. Without locking-in that core government support into National's column, National's position will become shakier and its prospects more uncertain. Things are not quite as challenging for Labour, however. Because it is in its first term in Opposition and because one-term governments are a rarity – only two (both Labour) in the last century – while there may be increasing hope, there is not yet any real expectation that it can win in 2026. That immediately relieves some of the pressure of expectation of returning to office so quickly. Similarly, because governments lose elections rather than Oppositions win them, the level of scrutiny on Labour's promises will always be less than that on the government's promises. That will change a little as the election nears, but for Labour, right now, the longer it can keep getting away with criticising the government and not offering any constructive alternative, the better. None of this means a Labour-bloc victory at the next election is unlikely or impossible. With polls showing increasing disapproval of the country's current direction, it must be acknowledged there is a greater chance of this occurring. And yet again, it will be a case of the government losing, rather than the Opposition winning.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Eliminating DEI Appointments A Step Closer
ACT is celebrating the passage of Public Service Amendment Bill through its first reading in Parliament which will remove divisive DEI appointments and strip out the ideological rot embedded in the public sector. The Bill reflects commitments made in ACT's coalition agreement. Diversity mandates were implemented by the Labour-NZ First-Green Government. 'Taxpayers don't care about your race or sex – they care if you can deliver them essential services,' says ACT Public Service spokesperson Todd Stephenson. 'With ACT in Government, we're putting public servants' focus back on solving the problem, instead of the demographics of the person solving it. 'We've long called out the obsession with diversity targets and virtue signalling. Now we're cutting it out. ACT's coalition agreement secured a commitment 'to clarify the role of the public service, drive performance, and ensure accountability to deliver on the agenda of the government of the day,' and this bill is delivering on it. 'The identity of the person procuring life-saving medicines, improving the education system, or responding to natural disasters doesn't matter – so long as it's the person with the best skills and experience doing it. 'We're proud to see more of ACT's influence driving real change. Every New Zealander deserves to be judged on their ability and achievements, not their identity – we're making sure that happens.'
